"I do movie reviews, but don't ask me about this Kubrick dude, I'm not into Russian cinema."

Edit: To clarify, because i don't want to sound offensive: you're entitled to not knowing anything about PC gaming, albeit that makes you not a videogame expert to say the least, but you're not entitled to compare a PC version of a game to a console one based on random stereotypes.

Some people review jazz. Some people review strategy games. Others stay away from PC games. You might have a problem with that, but most sites don't expect all journalists to know all genres or platforms.

I wrote this before but I am struggling to think of a single game that has as much "anti-hype" as titanfall. The sheer amount of negative conversation around the game is epic. Even to the extent of casting aspersions on every positive thing that has been said by any games journalists that is more enthusiastic than "It's a fun little shooter" or "It's COD with mechs".

I don't have a dog in this fight but some people really don't want consumers to be excited/interested in this game. The thing that is interesting is that even though journalists are very effusive about it, people who have played it are as well, are these people being influenced by Microsoft as well?

I do not get why people relies on videogame cites or media , we are talking about videogames no rocket science. This industry is more about the feelings than the facs, is subjetive so every new has to be taken with a grain of salt

Some people review jazz. Some people review strategy games. Others stay away from PC games. You might have a problem with that, but most sites don't expect all journalists to know all genres or platforms.

I have trouble believing a jazz reviewer will sprout stereotypes on Mozart, or fall from the clouds when somebody mentions "xylophone".

I don't pretend game reviewers top counter-strike matches or write essays on configuration tweaks for Crysis, and specialization on a particular section of gaming has the advantage of directly connecting with a specific audience, but being unprepared on a massive section of gaming culture because it doesn't "concern you" is simply reflective of low standards and the lack of a proper academic degree.

With PC we're not talking about a tiny fraction of the gaming market or a specialized niche, we're talking about 75 million gamers and the creative laboratory that is basically dictating how and where the entire industry goes, both economically and logistically. Just as ridiculous would be talking about 3DS/Vita without knowing the appstore.

MOBAs, user generated content, Free 2 Play, digital distribution, VR gaming, "presence", Early Access... Those represent the present and future of gaming, and right now they are all rooted in PC gaming hardware and culture.

I have trouble believing a jazz reviewer will sprout stereotypes on Mozart, or fall from the clouds when somebody mentions "xylophone".

I don't pretend game reviewers top counter-strike matches or write essays on configuration tweaks for Crysis, and specialization on a particular section of gaming has the advantage of directly connecting with a specific audience, but being unprepared on a massive section of gaming culture because it doesn't "concern you" is simply reflective of low standards and the lack of a proper academic degree.

With PC we're not talking about a tiny fraction of the gaming market or a specialized niche, we're talking about 75 million gamers and the creative laboratory that is basically dictating how and where the entire industry goes, both economically and logistically. Just as ridiculous would be talking about 3DS/Vita without knowing the appstore.

MOBAs, user generated content, Free 2 Play, digital distribution, VR gaming, "presence", Early Access... Those represent the present and future of gaming, and right now they are all rooted in PC gaming hardware and culture.

Yup. And I don't see why that's not a valid stand. I'm not talking down people who choose to own PCs over other platforms.

Originally Posted by U-R

I have trouble believing a jazz reviewer will sprout stereotypes on Mozart, or fall from the clouds when somebody mentions "xylophone".

I don't pretend game reviewers top counter-strike matches or write essays on configuration tweaks for Crysis, and specialization on a particular section of gaming has the advantage of directly connecting with a specific audience, but being unprepared on a massive section of gaming culture because it doesn't "concern you" is simply reflective of low standards and the lack of a proper academic degree.

With PC we're not talking about a tiny fraction of the gaming market or a specialized niche, we're talking about 75 million gamers and the creative laboratory that is basically dictating how and where the entire industry goes, both economically and logistically. Just as ridiculous would be talking about 3DS/Vita without knowing the appstore.

MOBAs, user generated content, Free 2 Play, digital distribution, VR gaming, "presence", Early Access... Those represent the present and future of gaming, and right now they are all rooted in PC gaming hardware and culture.

Lack of proper academic degree? What do you know about that? And your thing about low standards does not deserve an answer since I don't believe you have read my stuff (unless you are from Scandinavia). It also makes you sound rude.

Writing about games without owning a PC does not mean I don't know anything about MOBAs and the rest of your list. I do own a Mac and play games on Steam.

Titanfall's previews didn't start from "very positive", "definitely worth looking forward", "a new great take on the online shooter genre", they started right at "absolute utterly majestic fantastic killer app of awesomeness".

The concept that money didn't cross hands for this to happen is just as ridiculous as believing your secret Nigerian uncle is a prince, how this money crossed -menacing ad removal, or plain bribery- now that's more of a contentious argument. I have relatively little problem with advertising being pushed as "articles" when it's so obvious it's self-parody, but gaming journalism looks awkward when it tries to wear the advertising shoe in one foot and the journalism shoe in the other; putting together a paid preview of a game on one page and a skeptical preview of another game in another.

Almost as awkward as saying a user is a hardcore PC technician if he can connect a hdmi cable between his video card and his TV and push "big picture" on steam's interface. You're the specialist journalists, you're the ones that should teach your audience those amazing tricks, not craft artificial dumbness to match a pre-constructed audience stereotype, salvo bitch and moan when the real audience congregates on a forum like this one and mocks the entire game reporting industry.

Now, being realistic, i don't expect game journalism to stop writing paid or forced previews, that's how the game is rigged right now, but at least i do expect them to discover Minecraft a week before 4chan, i do expect them to hit the resolution-gate with the same strength as NeoGAF did, to detail what TV PC gaming is, and stop posting straight bullshit, like 720p is just like 1080p, DRM is harmless, the audience is powerless, and other complete fuckups the press has collected as of late.

If even this is "too much to ask", why exactly this whole "gaming journalism" thing exists?

Respawn's first game was highly anticipated well before it was revealed in 2013. Ever since Jason West and Vince Zampella started their new company having left Infinity Ward and taking a mass exodus of its staff with them, lots of people were looking forward to what they would do now that they were no longer shackled by Activision and the Call Of Duty IP. When they were a no-show at E3 2012, Respawn employees were being hounded at the show for details and remained tight-lipped. There was considerable enthusiasm for it here on GAF in 2013 when news of it leaked via an inadvertently leaked Game Informer issue. This whole meme of Titanfall's hype being completely manufactured is itself being manufactured by people who are either being intentionally obtuse, or hadn't been paying close enough attention to the industry prior to the 2013 E3 show. It's revisionist history. The number one reason for the hype of Titanfall is its pedigree that is obvious to anyone familiar to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and its game-changing effect on the console multiplayer landscape.

Lack of proper academic degree? What do you know about that? And your thing about low standards does not deserve an answer since I don't believe you have read my stuff (unless you are from Scandinavia). It also makes you sound rude.

Writing about games without owning a PC does not mean I don't know anything about MOBAs and the rest of your list. I do own a Mac and play games on Steam.

For the academic degree i mean there is no actual study degree that gives an at-least-minimum background in gaming history, design and market dynamics so that every "trained" gaming journalist is at least guaranteed to be above the "average hardcore/collector gamer" in terms of knowledge and preparation. I'm sure most gaming journalist probably would qualify already, but not all of them: and that's what gives a bad name to the category.

No such academic courses exists or are mainstream enough, so i don't expect any gaming journalist to come from there yet, the situation will progressively change, i guess. In Italy there are already experimental academic degrees which are spin-off of more traditional courses in music, cinema and visual arts analysis, but the quality of teaching in those courses i don't know. I can imagine the United States are already in a much better shape to train a new wave of baseline reliable gaming critics.

Also my post isn't against you and your writing, which i don't even know, but about the justification for a gaming jounalist to summon the Comfy Couch Monster in 2014, where -literally- a HDMI cable and a xbox controller is all that's needed to connect a PC to a TV screen.

Respawn's first game was highly anticipated well before it was revealed in 2013.

And i was one of those who anticipated the next evolution of online gaming from West and Zampella, but the previews went far FAR above the legitimate hype and joy in what looks like a great game, curiously targeting specifically one single version of a multiplatform game. Adding this to the strategical position of the game, the names of the companies involved, and the well known bribery cases that involve those companies... well, Occam's Razor.

And i was one of those who anticipated the next evolution of online gaming from West and Zampella, but the previews went far FAR above the legitimate hype and joy in what looks like a great game, curiously targeting specifically one single version of a multiplatform game. Adding this to the strategical position of the game, the names of the companies involved, and the well known bribery cases that involve those comanies... well, Occam's Razor.

You certainly have a point. The worst thing is they try to force the XBO version of TitanFall down our throats like that is the only version that exists and then when we question it, they make out like we're conspiracy nuts. It's laughable and they think we're stupid.

Anyone who thinks we weren't living in the shadow of decade+ old established franchises at our reveal at E3 are as crazy as their conspiracy theories of anyone getting paid off. We've had to fight tooth and nail to have a game that anyone would even know existed, let alone be excited for and want to create coverage of. I get it that its not for everyone, but to say we're paying anyone off is downright insanity. Not to mention the height of insulting.

Or is Geoff Keighley one one of the biggest perpetrators of hype that leads people to cynicism. I mean he build so much hype for games that when they flop he is no where to found. I am also looking at you ign and gamespot.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJshw2Axsqc

Anyone who thinks we weren't living in the shadow of decade+ old established franchises at our reveal at E3 are as crazy as their conspiracy theories of anyone getting paid off. We've had to fight tooth and nail to have a game that anyone would even know existed, let alone be excited for and want to create coverage of. I get it that its not for everyone, but to say we're paying anyone off is downright insanity. Not to mention the height of insulting.

I don't think anyone was bribed. I think people got carried away with their hype. The shit is crazy. As others have said, the game is on 3 platforms and all the hype was for one.

Go look at the leaked pics of The Order thread. It is literally close ups of people, some nonactive struggle, and some bad corridor shooting. People are so hyped for next gen games they will go overboard.

The difference is, they aren't getting paid to write about. Hype builds anticipation so people want to learn more about the game, thus they will click on more pages. People say outrageous stuff to get more clicks. I'm guessing their editors let the stuff they say go through because of this.

I wrote this before but I am struggling to think of a single game that has as much "anti-hype" as titanfall. The sheer amount of negative conversation around the game is epic. Even to the extent of casting aspersions on every positive thing that has been said by any games journalists that is more enthusiastic than "It's a fun little shooter" or "It's COD with mechs".

I don't have a dog in this fight but some people really don't want consumers to be excited/interested in this game. The thing that is interesting is that even though journalists are very effusive about it, people who have played it are as well, are these people being influenced by Microsoft as well?

Anyone who thinks we weren't living in the shadow of decade+ old established franchises at our reveal at E3 are as crazy as their conspiracy theories of anyone getting paid off. We've had to fight tooth and nail to have a game that anyone would even know existed, let alone be excited for and want to create coverage of. I get it that its not for everyone, but to say we're paying anyone off is downright insanity. Not to mention the height of insulting.

I think your game deserves the hype it got, but no game deserves to be a system-seller masterpiece before it reaches the players, be it a new Zelda or GTA or an unknown indie title, may it come from a big name or an unknown indie studio. The fact that it looks suspicious has more to do with how childish the previewers acted rather than anything your studio directly did, if indeed this is just a random coincidence: blame them for acting like that.

Second edit: I have very limited experience with the industry, but one thing i can say for sure: i don't expect nor believe that any studio would even think about "oiling" the press wheels, be it Respawn or any another studio, you have my apologies if you believed for even one second that doubt was cast over your team when i said "companies involved". I'm sure you're all just too busy building the best game you can with no other concern other than excellence.

Anyone who thinks we weren't living in the shadow of decade+ old established franchises at our reveal at E3 are as crazy as their conspiracy theories of anyone getting paid off. We've had to fight tooth and nail to have a game that anyone would even know existed, let alone be excited for and want to create coverage of. I get it that its not for everyone, but to say we're paying anyone off is downright insanity. Not to mention the height of insulting.

Don't be so defensive, no one in here thinks Respawn bribed any one. You seem like a good bunch. I particularly liked it when Vince seemed annoyed about the MS exclusive deal. It showed that, that isn't what you guys wanted and that you wanted what's best for gamers.

The company we think is behind all this is Microsoft because of the shameless XBO promoting going on. It just doesn't seem genuine that the other two formats are dismissed and that the XBO is the only platform to play it on.

I miss how EGM used to do reviews waaay back in the old days -- four reviewers each with a different score and then an overall score based on the average of the four review scores.

I thought this method really helped to show individual reviewer bias while giving reviews that allowed for multiple perspectives.

So if their fps guy gave the game a high score but their RPG guy gave the game a low score I could make my own judgments based on the genre of the game being reviewed, as well as my own genre preferences.

For allegedly hating me so much, you guys seem to spend an awful lot of time thinking and talking about me.

No one hates you here. Stop trying to make yourself the victim. The issue was that what you wrote was hyperbolic and over the top. It sounded less like a preview and more like a promotion for Titanfall and Xb1.

Originally Posted by Ryan_IGN

I don't really expect to win over a lot of people in this thread, but I'm happy to give a constructive reply and give it a shot.

(1) You're right, in an article written in August I absolutely gave Microsoft the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to the Xbox One ecosystem. No one had any idea the extent of the problems that awaited the console when it finally released. When that piece was written, the Xbox 360 had drafted the blueprint for how online on a console could be done, and Xbox Live was a brilliant ecosystem. It was reasonable to think Xbox One would only make the online multiplayer experience (i.e. the games themselves, not the DRM) BETTER. I try to be an optimistic guy, so I'm always going to give the benefit of the doubt. I just prefer to live my life that way. It's pretty easy to put on the 20/20 hindsight glasses and criticize me for that, but so be it.

(2) PC gaming is still largely thought of as a desk-based, monitor-viewed experience, even if Steam's Big Picture mode is slowly starting to change that. And remember who IGN's audience is: most of them are not the hardcore NeoGAF user who knows every little trick to getting their PC gaming going on an HDTV. I think a lot of criticism towards IGN by NeoGAF in general stems from that. A lot of times we write things that you guys already know and you rip us for it. And that's fine. You guys are the power users. You're the hardest of the hardcore. Most people reading ANY of the major media sites don't fall into that category.

(3) Here I feel you're just criticizing my writing style, and again, that's fine. I do my best to write even-handed previews, but if I got carried away on this one (and universal media enthusiasm for Titanfall suggests I'm not alone if I am in fact guilty of that), then it's my mistake and I'll try to do a better job of reeling it back in going forward. In fact, I've written dozens of previews since then and not one of them has been called out here, so perhaps Titanfall was an aberration. I wonder if you think my last Thief preview is even-handed or not? I try to be even-handed, but because these are not final, reviewable games, I will ALWAYS give the benefit of the doubt in a preview even if my gut tells me they're not going to improve. That's just my philosophy.

Look, I get it. I write for IGN. That puts a big target on my (and any IGN editor's) back from the hardcore gamers like yourselves. That I wrote for OXM before that just doubles my alleged fanboyism even though Microsoft had nothing to do with the magazine (how it actually worked/works is that Future, the publisher, pays Microsoft for the rights to use the "Official Xbox" name and the Xbox nexus logo. That's the extent of the relationship; there is no editorial relationship). Do I prefer doing my gaming on the Xbox platform? Sure I do, but that's not unlike many fellow NeoGAF users and millions of gamers out there. I play games on all platforms and I'll get my own PS4, in time (for the Wii U, it's going to take a price drop and a mainline, Galaxy-level Mario to get me to bite). But I've been in this business for 11 years and I hope to be in it for many more. I am always trying to improve myself, because if I don't, there will always be someone else eager to take my job.

I'll conclude by saying that I've done stuff that NeoGAF actually had overwhelmingly positive things to say about recently, like this and this. But if you'd like to write me off for one over-enthusiastic preview from last year, I get that this post probably isn't going to change your mind. But I thank you for at least reading my thoughts here.

I get the point about "playing to the crowd". Maybe the majority that read IGN don't know how simple it is to hook up their pc to their TV and play from their couch (I doubt it but its possible). The question for me becomes should you be doing that as a journalist? Should you report on things that you think your audience wants to hear or should just report what you know and let the audience decide if they like it or not? I prefer the latter but maybe that's just me.

I don't know how the editorial process works at IGN but if it were me, I wouldn't let you write about Xb1 exclusive since you seem to really like the Xbox and their products (which is fine, we all like products) and I just don't feel you give a honest critique of Xb1 since you appear to like their product so much. It just feels weird when you write either previews or reviews about Xbox games because like I said earlier it sounds more like a promotion and less like a review or critique of the product.

Or is Geoff Keighley one one of the biggest perpetrators of hype that leads people to cynicism. I mean he build so much hype for games that when they flop he is no where to found. I am also looking at you ign and gamespot.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJshw2Axsqc

I can't blame him too much, the guy is on a constant sugar rush from all the Mountain Dew and Doritos he consumes. #rehashedjokefrom2yearsago

For the academic degree i mean there is no actual study degree that gives an at-least-minimum background in gaming history, design and market dynamics so that every "trained" gaming journalist is at least guaranteed to be above the "average hardcore/collector gamer" in terms of knowledge and preparation. I'm sure most gaming journalist probably would qualify already, but not all of them: and that's what gives a bad name to the category.

No such academic courses exists or are mainstream enough, so i don't expect any gaming journalist to come from there yet, the situation will progressively change, i guess. In Italy there are already experimental academic degrees which are spin-off of more traditional courses in music, cinema and visual arts analysis, but the quality of teaching in those courses i don't know. I can imagine the United States are already in a much better shape to train a new wave of baseline reliable gaming critics.

Also my post isn't against you and your writing, which i don't even know, but about the justification for a gaming jounalist to summon the Comfy Couch Monster in 2014, where -literally- a HDMI cable and a xbox controller is all that's needed to connect a PC to a TV screen.

Ok dude. Regarding education. I don't know how many games journos have journalism school background. It's probably not even half, and if I'm right, that will explain a lot of the more horrible examples of bad games reporting.

I don't actually think you need a specialized "games writing" degree to be a good journalist. It wouldn't hurt, but the ethical groundwork and skills taught in class should be more than enough.

PS. I have a journalism degree and some social anthropology with focus on popular culture. I find it's a nice mix.

In all honesty guys: Some of you seem to overreact a bit.
If you don't like IGN, well....don't read IGN? No I'm serious. Don't get furious cause IGN said something dumb, ignore it. It's really that easy. If you have a Youtuber you trust, go watch him. If there is a site you trust, read their stuff.

Also, and this has to be said: As much as people tend to mention how "scores are way too high these days" every time a game people are looking forward to gets a low score, people are FURIOUS about it (I remember the GI review for Lords of Shadow 2. Or remember Uncharted 3? Gears 3? Batman? Yeah). And that's not just "some people, somewhere on the internet" that's right here on Gaf.

In all honesty guys: Some of you seem to overreact a bit.
If you don't like IGN, well....don't read IGN? No I'm serious. Don't get furious cause IGN said something dumb, ignore it. It's really that easy. If you have a Youtuber you trust, go watch him. If there is a site you trust, read their stuff.

Also, and this has to be said: As much as people tend to mention how "scores are way too high these days" every time a game people are looking forward to gets a low score, people are FURIOUS about it (I remember the GI review for Lords of Shadow 2. Or remember Uncharted 3? Gears 3? Batman? Yeah). And that's not just "some people, somewhere on the internet" that's right here on Gaf.

Anyone who thinks we weren't living in the shadow of decade+ old established franchises at our reveal at E3 are as crazy as their conspiracy theories of anyone getting paid off. We've had to fight tooth and nail to have a game that anyone would even know existed, let alone be excited for and want to create coverage of. I get it that its not for everyone, but to say we're paying anyone off is downright insanity. Not to mention the height of insulting.

If any coverage was bought it was done by marketers not developers.

The problem isn't that titanfall exists or that it's hyped.

The problem is that "have you seen titanfall though!!!" is the response from MS and the games press when anyone says anything even slightly negative about the xb1.

This extends to "power of the cloud" bullshit. Yeah dedicated servers are great but to act like some magical cloud tech is making the game run is insanity. Dedicated servers are nothing new.

It's also pretty gross how the games press is doing such a hard sell that titanfall is some xb1 exclusive when the pc and 360 versions will likely sell much much more.

Even if there is no money exchanging for titanfall positivity, there is still a huge financial pressure on the media to hype it. Console wars are big money. gamers spend hours arguing in the comment section, racking up click counts. If xbo gets blown away, then theres no war. Titanfall is practically the only hypeable game xbo has.

I miss how EGM used to do reviews waaay back in the old days -- four reviewers each with a different score and then an overall score based on the average of the four review scores.

I thought this method really helped to show individual reviewer bias while giving reviews that allowed for multiple perspectives.

So if their fps guy gave the game a high score but their RPG guy gave the game a low score I could make my own judgments based on the genre of the game being reviewed, as well as my own genre preferences.

I think you'll find that they 'borrowed' that formula from Famitsu and I use the word 'borrowed' in the loosest possible sense.

At this point, I just try to follow the people I like and ignore the ones I don't. I'm saving my energy to actually play some games instead of wishing the media writing about them would step up their game a bit. Much easier this way. =P

This material would in turn be instantly grabbed by said media outlets. In essence GAF would just end as another site for Sony to drop their "select" marketing media on. To say nothing of the inevitability of ending up with something like the top 5 or 10 threads being "**** OFFICIAL Sony Trailers/Stills ****", "**** OFFICIAL EA Trailers/Stills ****", etc.

Sounds like a great idea on paper but in the end I think keeping company and fan at arms length is better for all involved.

Yep, the notion that it would be anything other than a PR exercise is basically completely nonsense

Sony have been very savvy this generation with their PR, much less obvious about marketing with major sites but much more obvious about targeting 'grass roots' stuff like interaction through twitter etc (not talking about shills here, just their use of social media is very savvy, and highly calculated as part of their 'by gamers for gamers' image). The last thing I think GAF should do is literally invite them in.

You also need to take into consideration that big websites like IGN and GS get paid huge sums of money for advertising, in some cases they can not criticize their games without consequences. Its one of the biggest issues with the gaming media right now.

Yeah, it's hyperbolic, but that's still valid writing I think. I was listening to DLC last night and Garnett was talking up TF, he said something about how you almost have to remind yourself to blink, because you're just constantly taking in information and it's super immersive. I have no experience with the game and am not interested in it really, but I get when these guys are trying to describe something amazing they felt.

I suppose it's a little different when talking off the cuff on a podcast vs sitting there and thinking about what you want to write, but I generally don't fault previewers for being excited.

It's the GTA hyperbole that I find problematic, it goes right up until the reviews are out, then people seem to have trouble even finding a place for the game in top ten lists for the year. It baffles me.

Youtube and Twitch streams have pretty much made game reviewers irrelevant. I prefer to hear what actual gamers without an agenda have to say about something. Now, not only can I read what they say, I can watch them play it.

I stopped paying attention to games journalism around 5-6 years ago and haven't looked back. I think that was around the time 1UP liked using the descriptor "oozing" no less than 20-30 times per review. Also I think that was around the time of GTA4's oscar caliber story embarrassment. Also using a thesaurus in their reviews didn't make them come off as smarter because it had the unintentional effect of muddling and obscuring what they were trying to say, so it was a bunch of nothing.

Now most games media is a bunch of hyperbolic and clickbait junk meant to stir up controversy. I do like Giant Bomb though because it does the best at what it does: a bunch of dudes sitting around playing video games.

This, right here, is the biggest load of shit that you are all feeding yourselves. YouTube and Twitch streamers have the biggest agenda -- to continue getting free games and shit from publishers.

Anyone who thinks we weren't living in the shadow of decade+ old established franchises at our reveal at E3 are as crazy as their conspiracy theories of anyone getting paid off. We've had to fight tooth and nail to have a game that anyone would even know existed, let alone be excited for and want to create coverage of. I get it that its not for everyone, but to say we're paying anyone off is downright insanity. Not to mention the height of insulting.

Not saying I subscribe to the crackpot conspiracy conjurers (because I don't), but I believe the argument is that said coercion/influence usually comes from the publisher and/or the console manufacturer in the event of an exclusive such as this. I don't think I've seen one person ITT accuse Respawn directly of such media influence.

I don't think it can be denied that larger publishers and console manufacturers have quite a few tools at their disposal when it comes to coercing and/or influencing enthusiast media and they will use them at any and every opportunity that they get. And even then, as the tweets above me show, sometimes it's not so much direct influence as it is pandering to your audience.

Titanfall deserved to get hyped to the heavens much more than Call of Duty: Ghosts did and I didn't hear anyone complaining about that game's equally obscene level of coverage. That game was made by the zombie corpse daring to still call itself Infinity Ward while this game is the real spiritual successor to the series made by the original creators of it.

I think the take-away point here is people need to think for themselves in regards to gaming. Judge each article and game on its own merits, read a variety of opinions and then form your own and don't feel a need to look to game journalists or GAF for validation of it. A critical attitude is much more effective than a cynical one.

I think the take-away point here is people need to think for themselves in regards to gaming. Judge each article and game on its own merits, read a variety of opinions and then form your own and don't feel a need to look to game journalists or GAF for validation of it. A critical attitude is much more effective than a cynical one.

People need to think for themselves. PERIOD.
It just so happens that we at gaf are very knowledgeable when it comes to gaming so glaring mistakes and inconsistencies will be noticed here first.
I guarantee you that there are problems with objectivity with every part of journalism and media because there are almost always people who'd benefit if the majority of people is mislead and does not get to know the actual truth... (remember Sadam's WMD for example)

People need to think for themselves. PERIOD.
It just so happens that we at gaf are very knowledgeable when it comes to gaming so glaring mistakes and inconsistencies will be noticed here first.
I guarantee you there are problems with objectivity with every part of journalism and media because there are almost always people who'd benefit if the majority of people is mislead and does not get to know the actual truth... (remember Sadam's WMD for example)

enthusiast media of all sorts deals with the same issue: remaining objective while not pissing off the people that give you access to the point where they revoke your access which means you can no longer do your job.

You've missed the point. I haven't disputed their experience playing the game and it's entirely irrelevant to my point which is that they sure seem to think it is vital that we know how great it is before the game is released and more importantly, before anyone reviews it.

Why bother with reviews if they have no duty as games journalists to remain objective before a review? They're already telling us, emphatically, do what you have to do to play this game. That's a review under the guise of a "preview." I can't wait until they start adding scores in previews (not really). In the case of TItanfall they should just add a score of 10 and get it over with because "my hands were shaking!."

It actually is vital that you have a gauge on the quality of a game before it is released. Previews can accomplish this.

I think the take-away point here is people need to think for themselves in regards to gaming. Judge each article and game on its own merits, read a variety of opinions and then form your own and don't feel a need to look to game journalists or GAF for validation of it. A critical attitude is much more effective than a cynical one.

I found that to be the best medicine for when a bad review of a game I happen to like does not coincide with the reality of how much fun the game is to me. I don't have as much fun in a game like Minecraft vs a game like Sleeping Dogs because I need rules and structure and narrative to push me into playing the game now. Every gamer is different so YMMV.

Having said that, maybe there should be a further separation between advertising and editorial? Or maybe a different revenue model for game magazines. The medium is not as niche as it was a decade or 2 ago...

With money changing hands directly? Probably not...
But what about access especially if it's exclusive?
What about redesigning your website in the style of a console gui?
You can't blame people for being suspicious...

And I personally find it funny when "journalists" (remove quotation marks for jschreier ^^) are talking about the wall between editorial and advertising like this would solve all problems.
It's not like the "journalists" don't look at their own site. It's not like they can't see who's paying their salary. You'll have to have a lot of self control to not be influenced even on a subliminal level by this.

With money changing hands directly? Probably not...
But what about access especially if it's exclusive?
What about redesigning your website in the style of a console gui?
You can't blame people for being suspicious...

The thing is, an enormous number of games companies do this, but my general impression is that people want to pick and choose about which ones they think are 'shady'.

With money changing hands directly? Probably not...
But what about access especially if it's exclusive?
What about redesigning your website in the style of a console gui?
You can't blame people for being suspicious...

Dude, seriously? Every fucking day in this forum there are people railing on every single site out there and talking about how the press is bought. Someone saying people on gaf, or IN THIS THREAD don't think the press is bought is absolute BULLSHIT.